Q&A: The Boundaries of Legitimate Public Discourse
The Boundaries of Legitimate Public Discourse
Question
I’ll use the example of the discussion about the judicial reform to raise a more general question: A conference was organized at some university whose purpose was to hold a dialogue between the two sides of the dispute over the legislative changes. There were those who came out against the very existence of such an event and argued that this was an absurd discussion of “dictatorship for or against” and that just as we would reject discussions such as “the Holocaust/rape/racism/slavery for or against,” so too we should not accept the discussion concerning the reform. Similar claims were raised by journalists regarding their media treatment of the reform, and also regarding the lack of legitimacy in presenting the various positions on the legal issue in a civics textbook, and so on. I reject the framing of the reform as a dictatorship, but I’m trying to formulate useful distinctions that one could propose also to someone who thinks otherwise regarding which positions deserve a place in public discussion. Is every position that has a sufficiently large number of supporters a position that should be legitimate in public discourse, for example, would a debate about slavery taking place a little before the American Civil War have been appropriate in its time? Or alternatively, would the consensus among experts decide? In that case, even if many people think the world is flat (or hold a position that does not fit with the scientific consensus on global warming) there would still be no justification for giving it a platform? But we’ve seen that a consensus of experts can be mistaken, even in subjects less prone to trouble, as in the case of Dan Shechtman. In the case of the reform in particular, and more generally in the softer fields, it seems that it is even harder to decide when some position crosses the line from a position that one should argue with to a position that one should not give space to. What is your view on this?
Answer
There is no position that has no place. Anything can and should be discussed. True, if it is a position that is obviously absurd, then it can be discussed, but there is no value in it. But if it is a position that is negative from a moral standpoint, that certainly does not disqualify discussing it, so long as it is reasoned. And especially if many good and serious people hold it and can justify it, then it is obvious that it should be discussed. The claims that there are invalid positions that may not be presented or discussed are themselves invalid claims (though they too should be discussed). There are no positions that are invalid for discussion. I would also hold a conference on Nazism, for and against, if I thought there were someone who could argue for it well.
As an aside, when people hold a conference, that does not mean experts have any added value on the matter. One should hear different positions, but not necessarily those of experts. So even if it is clear that experts can make mistakes, that neither adds nor detracts.